AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 25-5-1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Lahore hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, passed in Appeal No. 141(L) of 1993 file by the petitioner for non-payment of salary for the period commencing from 17-2-1987 till the resumption of duty by him on 1-12-1992 pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 1-7-1992 in Civil Appeal P. No.18 of 1991(Ch Noor Nabi Javaid v. I.A. And 2 others), dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was dismissed from service by respondent No. .l on 11-2- 1987. The petitioner filed Appeal No.205(L) of 1987 ' (New Appeal No.367(R)/89) against the above dismissal, but the same was dismissed by a judgment dated 23-6-1990. Against the above judgment aforesaid, civil appeal was filed with the leave of this Court, which was allowed as follows through the judgment dated 1-7-1992:-- "Consequently, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Federal Service Tribunal as well as that of the respondents regarding dismissal of the appellant and order fresh inquiry into the charges levelled against the appellant."
3. It appears that the department had commenced fresh enquiry against the petitioner. However he claimed his salary, for the abovementioned period from 17-2-1987 to 1-12-1992, which was not paid. Thereupon, he filed the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment. The petitioner has therefore, filed the present petition for leave to ' appeal.
4. In support of the above petition, Sardar Muhammad Akram, learned ASC appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has been ... Exonerated by the enquiry officer in the above fresh enquiry and submitted his report on 18-11-1993 and, therefore, in any case, respondent No. l is not justified to withhold the payment of the salary for the above period.
5. The question of payment of salary for the aforesaid period will have to be determined by the competent authority under the relevant rules. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant leave to appeal. However we would like to observe that respondent No. 1 should finalize the above matter including the question, as to whether the petitioner is to be paid the salary for the above period, in accordance with law. Leave is refused with the above observation.